'Eurosceptic' criticizes Constitution

Author: Caroline Vial

Heavy, verbose and arrogant, such is Charles Moore's view of the newly installed European Constitution, the set of laws that must be followed as a fundamental political principle by the European Union's (E.U.) affiliated governments. Moore, also known as a British "Eurosceptic" - that is, the supporter of a nation's independence from the E.U. - declared to The Daily Telegraph last week that the creation of a common set of laws for such a diverse conglomeration of nations ran against the true implications of a constitution. Moore compared the American notion of a "constitution," light at 21 pages, to Europe's 511-page "tile-sized" document.

"One can understand that the word 'constitution' rings softly to the ears of Americans," claimed Moore. "By going to bed at his usual hour of nine-thirty, [President] Bush would be able to browse it from end to end before ten o'clock rings on the presidential clock." The same could not be said concerning the hefty European Constitution.

According to Moore, by dedicating a minimum of 20 minutes to the European document, even the American president would realize that it does not constitute what one normally calls a constitution. Far from limiting itself to the distribution of powers - head of state, parliament, judicial system, central and local administrations - the European Constitution elaborates at length on the manner in which people must think and behave.

For instance, this new founding text supports positive discrimination, banishes the death penalty in all circumstances and is in favor of elevated public expenditure. The European Constitution is also installing a mandatory consultation between unions on the problems of employment. Moore continued, "It promotes the 'exchange of young workers,' 'light breakfasts,' 'long-distance education' and 'the physical and moral integrity of athletes' (find the error). And it imposes all of that to countries which each possess one elected government."

The document holds a wide array of dispositions on questions as diverse as abortion in Malta, two types of hot rolling-mills at a Czech steel factory and the relatively frightening state of a Slovak nuclear power plant, to name a few. "Such a text could not constitute a constitution," said Moore. "Or in any case a constitution that is supposed to be understood by those who are concerned."

If he was to draw the attention of President Bush to two aspects of the treaty, Moore would first mention article 1-16 that engages all member-States to support the "foreign policy of common security." The member-States, as it can be read, "actively endorse and without reserve, the Union's foreign policy of common security, in a spirit of loyalty and of mutual solidarity and respect the actions of the Union in that domain." Moore said that this article is a clear attempt to prevent Great Britain - or any other member-State - to act once again, unilaterally, in a military or political alliance with the United States.

President Bush recently warned against using the E.U. as an instrument of world power, which would be susceptible of dethroning NATO - "that is precisely what the European Constitution is seeking to do," said the Eurosceptic. The difference in the spirits that animate the two constitutions can be revealed in their respective first words, according to Moore. The American document begins with "We, the people," while the European text begins with "Its majesty the king of Belgians."

For such reasons, Moore believes that "it belongs to the Americans, and not to the Europeans, to decide whether they are willing to encourage the birth of a superpower whose ambition it is to become a world rival of the United States." The British as a people, can only claim not to have anything to gain in a European Constitution, according to Moore.

Those who are against the constitution in Europe demand that an copy of the Constitution be sent to each household. The government, on the other hand, remains evasive on the subject. But Moore asked, "What can one truly object to, other than the fact that such a distribution might damage the spines of our mail staff?" His suggestion is to include in the mailing a copy of the U.S. Constitution: "The parcel will be scarcely heavier and we will have the clearest object of comparison."